Tommi
Kotonen is Researcher at the Department of Social Sciences and
Philosophy at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. E-mail:
tomkoto@cc.jyu.fi

1.
Introduction

Presidential inauguration is probably the most important political ceremony
in the United States. After usually very intense period of hard fight over
presidency nation gathers to celebrate its new leader. It is also typically
a ceremony of recuperation: Issues that divided nation through campaign are
laid aside and issues that connect people are taken up. In that sense, when
politics is seen as a confrontation and struggle for power, inaugurations
turn out to be, paradoxically, very non-political occasions. When
considering that, it is perhaps not very surprising that some presidents
have used poetry as a part of the ceremony – one could rather say it is
surprising how rare it actually has been.

Poetry
has been seen as a non-political sphere par excellence. According to still
very dominant description, derived especially from Baudelaire, art is for
arts sake and poetry is a special case of individual presentation of private
emotions. Even longer tradition, which may be dated back to katharsis
–effect outlined by Aristotle, states that poetry creates harmony when
bridging the gap between individual emotions and interests of community. In
the American poetic tradition one of the central issues from the early
1800’s was to create a national language and poetry, which would show
America as having its independent character also in the field of culture.
Summoned with nationalism, nation and its poetry have been seen as equal, as
quotation from Walt Whitman proves: “The United States themselves are
essentially the greatest poem.”[i]
In this tradition of mimetic representation, Whitman being its central
proponent, unity is created by shifting the hierarchical boundaries by
vernacular language and free verse.

But I
want to argue that utilizations of poems in politics, and also poets
themselves, are not that innocent, and that even in as depoliticised
occasions as inaugurations they may actually carry with them more powerful
political messages as is indeed found in inauguration speeches. I exemplify
my point in this essay focusing on two cases. First one is poem by Robert
Frost, which he wrote for inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, the
second a poem by Maya Angelou, written for Bill Clinton’s inauguration in
1993.

From
these considerations I also wish to create a bit larger view on
interconnectedness of politics and poetry by taking examples of some
occurrences of poetry in American politics from recent years. Literature
scholar Hank Lazer has argued that two overlapping areas of thinking may be
seen as pivotal in contemporary American poetry: First he calls
dissemination of “the subject”, accomplished by formal innovation and
theoretical arguments; second is the politics of poetry as a resistance to
the official verse culture and hegemonic ideologies.[ii]
Both poetic styles are essentially political, first one being connected
among others to feminist poetry of Adrienne Rich, second centring on
language-poetry of Bob Perelman and Ron Silliman.

But
outside these academic and dissident realms, which might easily be labelled
as poetic self-centredness, one may perhaps read more interesting or at
least politically more revealing stories of poetical politics found inside
the mainstream politics. Therefore, I seek to illuminate in this essay some
points in “officially” recognized poetry and perhaps from my part also to
widen the understanding of what is usually seen as political poetry. In my
opinion, politics is more or less an aspect that may be read-out from a
broad spectrum of different kinds of poetries. There is always a two-way
movement from politics to poetry and vice-versa; from utilization of poetry
in politics to utilization of politics in poetry.

Inauguration speeches have a long history and have been from the very
beginning kind of a eulogy of the nation. Each speaker provides there his
vision for his beginning term in office and defines what he sees as
essential in character of America and its citizens. References to the most
commonly shared characterizations of America, which are often called master
narratives, “city on a hill”, “frontier nation” and “manifest destiny”, are
included in most of the speeches.

Many felt
that inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 20th of January in 1961 was a
starting point of a new era and in his speech elected new president did not
let down the expectations but reflected those feelings in a way that may be
counted among the highlights in the history of public orations. Kennedy
called the nation into “a struggle against the common enemies of man:
tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.” His speech urged the citizen to
take responsibility, to join the service of nation. One may easily find in
it some republican undertones; republican in a sense of active citizenship
and positive freedom. This posited him also against previous administration
and pointed to a long tradition of ideological rivalry between liberalism
and republicanism.[iv]

Kennedy
emphasised the basic understanding of humanity as a universal destiny
towards freedom and solidarity. America was, in a tradition of manifest
destiny, a leading spirit among freedom loving countries. People of United
States had also an enormous responsibility being citizens of the greatest
nation. Isolation was no option.

Clinton’s
speech in 20th of January in 1993 reflected in many parts the same ideas of
rebirth and responsibility that were a salient point in Kennedy’s speech.
Clinton accentuated that America was a strong and vital nation despite some
problems in economy. Following the genre of inaugurations, he explicitly
stated that every generation has to define what it means to be an American.
He challenged the nation to service and referred directly to Kennedy when
speaking of the trumpets calling to take responsibility, which was an
obvious reference to “city on a hill” – phrase as well. As a concrete
republican statement he urged that “To renew America, we must revitalize our
democracy.” America was characterized as a leader and the maker of the
world: “Clearly America must continue to lead the world we did so much to
make.”

Both
speeches called the people into a common enterprise. This pursuit of the
unity and active citizenship wrapped up the political juxtapositions which
dominated the campaigns. One may find here an evident paradox when noticing
that those juxtapositions are actually better revealed in poems read at the
same ceremony. Poems seemed to be combining political styles of idealism and
realism in an unexpected way.

3. Poetry
and political styles

There are
only few occasions when poetry has directly linked with American presidency.
One may of course find several poems about presidents, the most famous
undeniably being Walt Whitman’s Lincoln-poem “O Captain! My Captain!” and
some presidents have also published poetry when not being in office, most
notably John Quincy Adams, Lincoln and Carter. But in presidential speeches
and ceremonies poetry has been almost invisible. Therefore inaugurations of
Kennedy and Clinton are important objects of study when considering the role
of poetry in politics. Before going deeper into the inauguration poems I
shall take a short glimpse into the two “literary” styles of politics, those
of prosaistic and poetic.

Clinton
cites in his Memoirs an interesting analogy by Mario Cuomo stating that we
“govern by prose, campaign by poetry.”[v]
Poetry is according the analogy an art of exceptional situations which is
used in order to open up new possibilities and in a sense more political.
Men of realpolitik see this a bit differently: Nixon used to quote words by
Metternich, who said that “I am a man of prose, not of poetry.” Idealism of
poetry and realism of prose are here analogies of two different styles of
politics.

Larry
Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia saw,
when asked about John Kerry’s use of poetry in his campaign, that "A
president of the United States, at least in the American mind, is the leader
of the free world. And a leader of the free world is supposed to be grounded
in reality, in realpolitik. And quoting poetry suggests someone who may be a
daydreamer and we tend not to elect daydreamers as president."[vi]
As Kerry’s case shows, reckless use of poetry might indeed turn against its
user, a theme which I will discuss more below.

Clinton
follows his ponderings between prose and poetry writing that “the statement
is basically accurate, but a lot of campaigning is prose, too: putting
together the nuts and bolts, going through the required rituals, and
responding to the press. Day two of the campaign was more prose than poetry:
a series of interviews designed to get me on television nationally and in
major local markets, and to answer the threshold question of why I had gone
back on my commitment to finish my term and whether that meant I was
untrustworthy. I answered the questions as best I could and moved on to the
campaign message. It was all prosaic, but it got us to day three.”

John F.
Kennedy stated his idealist stand when considering poetry in his last major
public address at dedication of Robert Frost (sic!) Library at Amherst
College in 26 October 1963 that “when power leads man toward arrogance,
poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's
concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When
power corrupts, poetry cleanses”.

From the
statements above one may find that use of poetry divides politicians into
two categories, which are at the very core of the political action: It is
more or less of right combination between idealism and realism. Max Weber
talked in his lecture in 1919 about basic elements of successful political
action arguing that “passion, sense of responsibility, judgement” should be
balanced in mind of a politician. Vision and idealism, which are usually
connected to poetry, should not prevent taking distance from things and
people. “Problem is this: how are hot passions and cool judgement to be
forced together in a single soul?”[vii]

I take it
that problem which Weber highlighted is, though being basically unsolvable,
possible to unravel in poetry when not taking divisions between genres and
styles as fundamentally distinctive as notions above and one made by Hank
Lazer would suggest. I think T.S. Eliot has put it somewhat correctly when
writing that “the only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by
finding an ‘objective correlative’; in other words, a set of objects, a
situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular
emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory
experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked.”
[viii] Objectivity and poetry
are not necessarily inconceivable.

Robert
Frost (1874-1963) was in time of inauguration at the end of his long career.
He was involved in early 1920´s in movement of modernist, establishing a
friendship with Ezra Pound, but mainly remained outside of poetic fashions.
One could say he was a poet of traditional form, not influenced by
avant-gardes with their political dissidentism, and thus perhaps seemed as
suitable to promote ideas of new administration.

As Donna
Binkiewicz notes, inviting a poet to inauguration was not supposed to be a
political act but more like a symbolic manifestation of a new style:
“Kennedy initially conceived of his gesture to invite prominent artists to
his inauguration as more symbolic than substantive. August Heckscher later
recalled that ‘I don’t think he [Kennedy] had any idea of the stir it would
cause.‘ “[x]
And one thing he anyway could not predict: Frost did not read the poem
written for inauguration. “Unfortunately, even with Lyndon Johnson trying to
shield the lectern, glaring winter sunlight prevented Frost from completing
his reading and forced him to conclude by reciting from memory ‘‘The Gift
Outright,’’ a poem with a similar theme of pioneering and promise. “[xi]
As the last sentence proves, Binkiewitz seems to be passing all nuances of
the poems – being one of the many similar readers.

Poem
written for inauguration, “Dedication”, by Robert Frost is actually
untypically political in its linguistic level: he refers with a good sense
of irony to politics as a game, speaks of stalemates and sports, and also
takes up the issue of close elections. Even poems form hinted to irony:
Although not particularly a proponent of free verse, Frost did not usually
use such simplified forms which in “Dedication” sound like children’s rhyme.
Whereas Kennedy let all the partisanship aside, Frost took all those
controversial issues back in. It is actually not even today very common to
refer to politics as game, and when done so it happens usually in a
pejorative purpose, and even in this sense Frost makes an important
exception. It seemed almost like, when Kennedy tried to convince his
audience him being the President of the whole nation, Frost was making
claims to be the poet of the party. He spoke of another America, that of
dissidence and division, of Cold War America instead of a Frontier Nation of
Kennedy’s.

In
following lines Frost makes a poignant statement about the relationship
between politics and power, both being diminished into a dirty struggle for
glory for glory’s sake :

Glory is
out of date in life and art.
Our venture in revolution and outlawry
Has justified itself in freedom's story
Right down to now in glory upon glory.

Whereas
speech restated the master narratives, Frost provided alternative models to
understand America. Frost was ready to “play any game the nations want to
play,” echoing the tones of Realpolitik which lacked mostly from
speech of the president.

But poem
which he actually read in occasion, ”The Gift Outright”, was even harsher to
political idealism: Poems first lines already lead to this pessimism: “Land
was ours before we were the land’s”. Hamida Bosmajian has noticed there an
evident paradox. Land was ours only in appearance; we did not really possess
it. Bosmajian continues that “The nationalistic attitude does not allow the
speaker to say: America has not achieved cultural harmony and she probably
never will; therefore, her moment of grace is lost. But as poet he can
express his deep chagrin at the loss of that promise.”[xii]

Last
lines of poem reflect underlying cynicism of “Dedication”:

But still
unstoried, artless, unenhanced,

Such as
she was, such as she would become.

According
to poem, nothing has much changed since the days of colonization and
Augustan era of poetical glory will not come back, if it even ever was so
glorious. Interesting detail shows the lack of ironical sense of President
Kennedy: he wanted to change second last word from “would” to “will”, making
it even more cynical, more destined to artlessness.[xiii]
When brought back to its original context, the poem reveals its antipathy
and cynicism against master narratives: Poem that follows “The Gift
Outright”, “The Lesson for Today” in Witness Tree (1942) shows manifest
destiny as a sickness, “Space ails us moderns: we are sick with space”.
Whole collection of poems written in the days of war is pregnant with deep
pessimism.

5. “On
the Pulse of Morning” by Maya Angelou

Maya
Angelou is probably best known for her autobiographical books, but she is
also a poet, historian, songwriter, playwright, dancer, stage and screen
producer, director, performer, singer, and civil rights activist. As a poet
she may be counted among the most politically active Afro-American writers
having participated in Civil Rights Movement from the very early stage.

Bill
Clinton describes Maya Angelou’s poem and its reception in his memoirs as
follows: “Maya’s poem, ‘On the Pulse of Morning,’ riveted the crowd. Built
on powerful images of a rock to stand on, a river to rest by, and a tree
with roots in all the cultures and kinds that make up the American mosaic,
the poem issued a passionate plea in the form of a neighborly invitation”.[xiv]
But despite Clinton’s naturalistic feelings, to ask Maya Angelou to write
and perform a poem was itself an obvious political act, recognition to his
African-American supporters.

Angelou’s
poem has not much been praised by the literary scholars; just to take one
example, Marjorie Perloff called it “dreadful”.[xv]
But the credits of poem are not so much in its linguistical virtuosity but
rather in its performance and content. Compared to Clinton’s speech based on
ratio and sophisticated argumentation, Angelou gives passionate performance
with great pathos. Clinton’s policy of term is contrasted there with
politics and poetics of the moment.

Her lines
in the beginning of the long poem initiate reader to poems message, to
individual struggle against destiny:[xvi]

But
today, the Rock cries out to us, clearly, forcefully,
Come, you may stand upon my
Back and face your distant destiny,

But seek
no haven in my shadow.

Destiny
in poem is not relative to “manifest destiny”, it is rather just the
opposite, fighting individualism in spirit of Langston Hughes.

In many
comments her political message was reduced her being the first black, the
first woman to read a poem in inauguration. Some commentators amalgamated
its visions with Clinton’s speech: “When Maya Angelou read ‘‘On the Pulse of
Morning,’’ she bathed in the magic then surrounding the new administration.
The poem, like the incoming president, offered the dream of hope”.
[xvii]

But
Angelou’s appeal for Native Americans, gays, homeless, Eskimos, Jews, West
Africans, Muslims was actually not present in speech. However, unlike poem
by Frost, Angelou’s poem does not turn its back to the message of the
president but rather fulfils it by taking the argument much further than
Clinton could have done in his speech.

As Mary
Jane Lupton has commented[xviii],
“her theatrical rendering of ‘‘On the Pulse of Morning’’ is, in a sense, a
return to African American oral tradition [--] The ode also echoes the
rhetorical grace of the African American sermon, as practiced and modified
by Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan.”
Angelou gave the speech its lacking spirit.

But there
are some moments in poem which actually does not fit in with Clinton’s
message: As Clinton won the election at least according to most commentators
because he stressed the meaning of strong economy, he argued in his speech
that “we must invest more in our own people, in their jobs, in their future,
and at the same time cut our massive debt.” Clinton’s metaphors are more or
less concerning the circulation of the financial sector and grand industry;
Angelou writes with harsh criticism about pollution and despair when facing
the environmental disaster: “The dinosaur, who left dry tokens / Of their
sojourn here / On our planet floor, / Any broad alarm of their hastening
doom / Is lost in the gloom of dust and ages.”

It seems
almost like the politician has to be Wittgensteinian – whereof one cannot
speak, thereof one must be silent - but same limitation does not concern the
poet. Angelou opened Clinton’s message to more political, and therefore also
more controversial, spheres.

6.
Unintended causes of poetry: some recent examples from the politics of
United States

As Max
Weber has noticed, political action is newer totally manageable: “Eventual
outcome of political action frequently, indeed regularly, stands in quite
inadequate, even paradoxical relation to its original, intended meaning and
purpose”[xix]

This
contingent nature of politics prevails even more, of course, when
considering linguistic level. It lies in the very essence of politics to
fight with words and try to occupy uncharted areas through linguistic
manoeuvres. Issues previously outside the political realm may be
politicized by skilful use of language. But linguistic performances are
constantly under negotiation und disagreement. As previous analysis proves,
poetry is with its refined vocabulary good tool when trying to say the
unsayable. Borrowing from poets therefore may sharpen the message but also
opens ones own message to attacks. This was clearly shown when John Kerry,
democratic nominee in 2004 elections, took his slogan from Langston Hughes,
poet of the so called Harlem renaissance.[xx]

Kerry’s
campaign slogan, “Let America Be America Again” was borrowed from Hughes’
poem with same name. Unfortunately, campaign organisation did not probably
do their homework well enough: Slogan was easy target for republicans first
of all because it made Kerry an easy target for charges of elitism; and
secondly, which was more harmful, because it was written by writer who
declared himself as a Stalinist. Kerry quoted poem in many occasions, but
intentionally passed some embarrassing lines. It didn’t help much stating
that Bush had earlier praised Langston Hughes when celebrating the National
African American History Month: “This month, and throughout the year, let us
celebrate and remember these stories, which reflect the history of African
Americans and all Americans. We can all enjoy the works of writers like Paul
Laurence Dunbar, James Weldon Johnson, Zora Neale Hurston, and Langston
Hughes”.[xxi]

An
example from the republican side shows how problematic it is to try to keep
spheres of culture and politics separated from each other. Laura Bush's
"Poetry and the American Voice" symposium was canceled after several
prominent poets - including former U.S. poet laureates Rita Dove and Stanley
Kunitz - declined her invitation. The White House feared the event would
become less a literary event than a political forum. Obviously the First
Lady wanted to promote her literariness and also the idea of American unity
in plurality of voices, e pluribus unum. Some conservative observers
claimed that meeting was about to be cultural, non-political and that poets
politicized it. However, the idea of the symposium was to celebrate the
poetry of Walt Whitman, Langston Hughes and Emily Dickinson, at least first
two being utmost political writers in all senses of word, and then the
place, Whitehouse, non-political? "There is nothing political about American
literature," Laura Bush said.[xxii]

These two
examples show how unforeseeable tool poetry is, when used in politics.
Putting it in terms of rough generalization, especially republicans seem to
be eager to depoliticize poetry, democrats attack by repoliticizing it –
demarcation which may be seen stemming from Walter Benjamin’s and Bertol
Brecht’s notions of aestheticization of politics. Poetry has in many
occasions, despite the political intensions to use it to simplify the
message, had too complex connotations to be effective in politics. One could
hope perhaps some sense of irony and nuances in politics, but they are not
very easily clarified to the large audiences. Very recently, the so called
“cartoon war” has dramatically shown these dangers of lacking sense of
nuances and irony.

7.
Conclusion

As
previous chapters have shown, it is not an easy issue to use poetry as a
tool for politics and even in most ceremonial occasions the power of
language mastered by skilful poet might turn against the purposes of
politician. One may also note that in order to reveal what is political in
poetry one might, and I suggest, should actually ask how it is political.
Most commentators have, for example, not noticed sharp irony in poem of
Frost which probably went unnoticed also by the staff of the president or
searched political aspects of Angelou’s poem from wrong places leaving the
performative and juxtapositional aspects unnoticed. Politics in poetry is
not to be simplified into a simple form, but lies in various contingent
elements.

Getting
too close to power is of course possible threat to poets integrity, but when
that opportunity is used skilfully, it provides also a chance not only to
promote ones poetry, but also to promote ones views of politics and nation,
implicitly or explicitly. From politicians’ point of view, giving space for
poetical gaming is anyhow also both threat and a chance: Their message may
be crystallized in an elegant way, but may also be damaged in many ways.
“Augustan era”, mentioned ironically by Frost, of poetry and power going
hand in hand is probably an illusion, but so is in my opinion also
non-political nature of art. So if one considers these sometimes unintended
meanings and causes in poetry, it makes sense for a politician to avoid
using it. Plato’s message when banishing the artists from his polis is still
worth of study.

In the
beginning of this essay I quoted Hank Lazer’s characterization of
contemporary poetry where he divided it into categories of formalism and
political marginalism. These two strands deal with politics basically in
mirroring ways: in first one politics is sort of aesthetized away, in second
aesthetics is politicized thoroughly. As Donald Marshall has, in my opinion
correctly, noticed, famous argument of Walter Benjamin concerning
aestheticization of politics and politicization of aesthetics is leading
nowhere: both forms leave arts as a minor part or even as a tool for
political designs and as Marshall notes, both socialistic realism and
national socialist art are not real art but kitsch.[xxiii]
As a play with language and form one could see politics and poetry more like
analogical forms of invention and creation of meaning. From this
perspective, poetry and politics wouldn’t neutralize each other but could be
treated as occasional partners, not as hostile rivals or negligent
strangers.

[xxiii]
Donald Marshall, “´Death Is the Mother of Beauty´: Aesthetics,
Politics, and History in Gadamer” in Steve Martinot, Ed. Maps and
Mirrors: Topologies of Art and Politics. (Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press 2001).